FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Return to work for three Polishing Technicians.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Collinstown, Co. Westmeath and employs approximately 450 workers in the manufacture of car parts. The dispute concerns three (originally five) polishing technicians who were advised by the Company on the 21st of March, 2003, that they would be required to move to a 4-cycle shift in order to maintain the Volvo order. On the 10th of March, 2003, the date for commencement of the new 4-cycle shift, two of the workers showed up for their old 2-cycle and 3-cycle shift. Management called a meeting with the five workers and asked if they intended working the new shift. The workers confirmed that it was their intention not to work the 4-cycle shift. Management decided to lay them off as there was no requirement to work the old shift pattern. The Union's case is that it had raised the issue of health and safety (amongst other issues) in regard to the 4-cycle shift. Following a meeting between the Union and the five workers, the Company was advised at 6.15 p.m. that the workers would be available to work the 4-shift cycle by 8.00 p.m. on the evening of the 10th of March, 2003. The shift had been due to start at 8.00 a.m. However, by this stage, the Company had decided to divide the work among other employees and to dispense with the five technicians.
The Union took the position that the five workers should be offered positions as general operatives. The Company prefered to make the workers redundant and offered them a statutory redundancy package. If the workers insisted on coming back, they would be issued with a final written warning for failing to comply with agreed procedures and, also, the last five general operatives to join the Company would have be made redundant. The workers rejected this offer. Two of the five workers has since accepted the redundancy offer.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of July, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was an agreement with the Company to work the 4-shift cycle on the 10th of March, 2003.
2. The Union had raised the issue of health and safety (amongst other issues) with the Company in regard to the new shift.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were advised prior to the 10th of March, 2003, of the consequences if they refused to work the new shift.
2. The Company/Union agreement (The Green Book) clearly states that the Company has the right to select workers for 4-cycle shift work if necessary.
3. The five workers ignored the terms and conditions of their employment by refusing to work the 4-shift cycle.
4. The Company has undergone a number of changes in the last few months. There is no longer a requirement for the grade of polishing technicians.
RECOMMENDATION:
Regardless of the circumstances in which it came about, the reality is that work organisation has been restructured so that the work previously carried out by those associated with this claim is no longer required as a separate function. This constitutes a genuine redundancy.
In the circumstances, the claimants should be offered redundancy payments in line with those available to other redundant staff or should be offered redeployment provided it does not lead to displacement of others.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th November, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.